Chemical weapons confirmed!

Confirmation of chemical weapons in the Iraqi region has been confirmed. This is a clear and irrefutable violation of international law.

Uh, unfortunately, the weapons and the violations are on the part of the United States.

Dubya was damned bound and determined to find chemical weapons in Iraq and by God, if we can’t find them there we’ll bring 'em along ourselves! I suppose I should be surprised and disgusted by this but given my level of disgust with the whole situation nothing really surprises me any more.

First off, nothing has been used. Secondly, tear gas ain’t in the same ballpark as Vx.

It doesn’t look too good though.

“Surprised and disgusted” seem a bit strong. We are, after all, dropping bombs and shooting people. Is non-lethal tear gas a step up?

Obviously, if we signed a treaty stating we wouldn’t use them, then we shouldn’t. But c’mon…

Well, since we now “own” it we can use it.
:smiley:

There’s a pretty big fuckin difference between riot gas and mustard gas or sarin.

Just as there is a difference with Saddam’s regime and Bish’s regime. But seems to me that even liberal Presidential candidates don’t have the mental capacity to differentiate the two. I am sick of the left wing hyperbole. Posts like this just show how immature your rhetoric truely is.

Bush, but we all knew that.

Will we be able to hold you to that opinion if we find Saddam’s tear gas?

In not too long from now, Iraq will be under our jurisdiction. The Geneva convention ALSO makes occupying countries live up to a standard of maintaining peace and order in the countries they control. So it’s not clear that this would violate the convetion at all. It isn’t likely that they’d use tear gas in the war: they can just use bullets and bombs. Likely, the tear gas is for domestic control AFTER the war, by forces controlling large crowds, not fighting guerillas.

Tear gas is not on the list of proscribed items in Security Council Resolution 687, unless you want to argue that tear gas is a “chemical weapon.” That would be a pretty specious argument.

Sure.

But then, I’m one of the apparent few in the country who realizes that The Hunt For WMD’s isn’t the only reason for wanting to take out Saddam…

Apparently Bush doesn’t realize it, since WMD’s were the justification he gave for the invasion.

Yeah, I just thank the good lord above that the hyperbole and rhetoric coming from the right has been so fair and balanced. It has been a sane counterpoint to what would otherwise be and intolerable situation.:rolleyes:

It’s fucking tear gas. We’re lobbing cruise missiles at these people, and you give a shit about tear gas?

Tear gas is not a WMD, dipshit.

Otherwise my ass. My point is that it is intolerable doncha see? :wink:

Teargas a WMD?

You Otto know better…

I consider Otto to be a man of reasonably astute intelligence, so I doubt he really needs my help. But as long as I’m here, I will point out that he didn’t CALL teargas a WMD; he called it a chemcal weapon. The Guardian article linked in the OP supports this label. Should anyone care to put forward an argument that it is not, this thread might offer a convenient place to do so.

The excited thread title “Chemical weapons Confirmed!” made in the recent context of “Gotcha” threads crowing about any rumor of a WMD discovery, strongly implies that someone had found WMD’s. This is a non-story. Tear gas is a chemical weapon like a heavy flashlight is a “radiological” weapon.

Diogenes – take a pill, man. It’s an IRONY rant, okay? It’s Dubya being credited by the Guardian with authorizing the use of a chemical weapon.

Otto is tweaknig Dubya, not the anti-war crowd, get it?

Dubya.